========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:33:21 -0400 Reply-To: Lionel Smith Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Lionel Smith Subject: Re: RDG: Birksian/sine causa approach to enrichment law Comments: To: Charles Mitchell In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20071128153048.032f6d68@pop.kcl.ac.uk> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3290099601_536536" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3290099601_536536 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Although this may be a record for late replies, I will weigh in on Charles=B9 question, at least from the perspective of Quebec law. I suspect that the Quebec solution is one that other codified civilian systems, and at least some non-codified civilian/mixed systems, share. In Quebec, the problem is in some sense avoided, because the case is considered to be solved by the principles of subrogation, which are not understood as an example of unjust enrichment. In the English of Quebec civil law, subrogation may be conventional (by agreement) or legal (arising by operation of law). The key provision on legal subrogation in the Civil Code of Qu=E9bec is: 1656. Subrogation takes place by operation of law 1) in favour of a creditor who pays another creditor whose claim is preferred to his because of a prior claim or a hypothec; 2) in favour of the acquirer of a property who pays a creditor whose claim is secured by a hypothec on the property; 3) in favour of a person who pays a debt to which he is bound with others or for others and which he has an interest in paying; 4) in favour of an heir who pays with his own funds a debt of the succession for which he was not bound; 5) in any other case provided by law. The reference in paragraph (5) to =8Cprovided by law=B9 means =8Cby statute law=B9, that is, somewhere else in the Code or in some statute. It is paragraph (3) that would give a claim for contribution or reimbursement on Charles=B9 facts (unless the parties were co-sureties). Similarly, the case of guarantees (called sureties in the English text of the Code) is specifically regulated= , including a surety=B9s claim against the primary debtor, and claims among sureties (arts. 2356-60; the English text is on line at http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?ty = p e=3D2&file=3D/CCQ/CCQ_A.html) One could argue (indeed, in a recent article I did) that in this context, the technique of codification hides the problem rather than solving it in a= n intellectually satisfying way. The contract of surety, for example, is a special or nominate contract, and the articles mentioned above appear in th= e rules relating to this special contract, which themselves are situated in the part of the code that provides special rules for all the nominate contracts (sale, mandate, partnership, gift etc). The result is that if a co-surety is claiming contribution against another co-surety, he can point to the rule in art. 2360; he does not have to use the provisions on unjust enrichment which make reference to =8Cabsence of justification=B9. But if the subrogation/contribution rules are actually rules about unjust enrichment, then the structure of the Code tends to conceal the question of principle that Charles raises. Lionel On 28/11/07 11:16, "Charles Mitchell" wrote: > I'm afraid I can't answer Jacques' question, but I would like to an addit= ional > question of my own, by way of footnote to (distraction from?) his interes= ting > comments on the difficulties experienced in civil law jurisdictions with = cases > where payments are made to discharge debts which turn out not to have bee= n > due. I believe that civil law / mixed jurisdictions have also had > difficulties with payments of debts for the payment of which the claimant= WAS > liable, but which should more properly have been paid in part or in full = by a > defendant who was also liable for the same debt (i.e. cases which are tre= ated > in common law systems as claims for contribution or reimbursement). Sinc= e the > debt owed by the claimant to the creditor in these cases was due, one cou= ld > say that there was legal ground for the creditor's payment, suggesting th= at > there is a legal justification for the transfer on which not only the cre= ditor > but also the defendant can rely, in the event that the claimant tries to = get > his money back - cf Pothier, Trait=E9 des Obligations 2.2.7.4. Hence I bel= ieve > that civilian jurists have had to finesse this point in order to allow > recovery - but I'd be interested to hear from people in civilian / mixed > jurisdictions how this works out exactly. Best wishes, Charles >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > At 17:11 28/11/2007 +0200, Du Plessis, Jacques, Prof wro= te: >> I am relieved to hear that Duncan is not going after sine causa/absence >> of legal ground as a principle in all cases in all jurisdictions. Martin >> has already provided a Scottish perspective. As far as South African law >> is concerned, may I briefly add the following. >>=20 >> The South African experience with requiring proof of factors such as >> excusable mistake and compulsion to obtain restitution of transfers >> which were aimed at discharging liability but failed to do so (ie >> transfers which were not not due) has in fact not been a happy one. Some >> problems with determining the quality of the mistake or degree of >> compulsion have been similar to those experienced in the common law. An >> inability to make these determinations has at times even forced us back >> into the arms of fictional implied contracts, which is clearly not where >> we want to be.=20 >>=20 >> At a colloquium recently held in Stellenbosch on the future development >> of the South African law of unjustified enrichment, there was a clear >> appreciation on the side of many participants that we need to move away >> from the current approach. No-one is saying that a transfer which is not >> due must always be recoverable. It is accepted that there are >> circumstances when the recipient should be entitled to retain the >> transfer even though it is not due. The problem is identifying which >> recipient requires such protection. One possible answer is that it is >> the recipient who was brought under the impression that he could keep >> the transfer irrespective of whether it was due or not. Such a test >> avoids necessarily having to determine whether the transferor actually >> or supposedly knew/was in doubt/was ignorant about liability, or having >> to differentiate between the effects of various degrees of >> compulsion/pressure/influence on the transferor's mind; the focus is on >> the recipient, and on determining whether his reliance is such that he >> deserves to keep the undue payment. >>=20 >> How does all of this fit in with the sine causa requirement? In essence, >> one can say that the failure of the transfer to discharge a due debt >> prima facie means there is no legal basis for its retention; but whether >> it ultimately is retained without legal ground depends on whether the >> test above is met. >>=20 >> It would be interesting to hear of situations involving payments which >> are not due where such a test would give rise to unacceptable results, >> compared to an approach which requires that the undue payment must have >> been made under mistake or compulsion. >>=20 >> Best wishes >>=20 >> Jacques du Plessis >>=20 >> Prof Jacques du Plessis >> Faculty of Law >> University of Stellenbosch >> Private Bag X1 >> Stellenbosch 7602 >> South Africa >> Telephone: 0027 (0)21 808 3189 >> Fax: 0027 (0)21 886 6235 >> Courier: Ou Hoofgebou,c/o Ryneveldt & Andringa Streets, Stellenbosch, >> South Africa >>=20 >> ____________________________________________________________________ >> This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, >> an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law >> of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in >> the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, >> send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to >> all group members, send to . The list is >> run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, . >> ____________________________________________________________________ Thi= s >> message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an >> international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unj= ust >> enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a >> message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff >> enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members,= send >> to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGi= ll >> University, . ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, . --B_3290099601_536536 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [RDG] RDG: Birksian/sine causa approach to enrichment law</TITLE= > </HEAD> <BODY> <FONT FACE=3D"Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font- size:12.0px'>Altho= ugh this may be a record for late replies, I will weigh in on Charles’= question, at least from the perspective of Quebec law. I suspect that the Q= uebec solution is one that other codified civilian systems, and at least som= e non-codified civilian/mixed systems, share.<BR> <BR> In Quebec, the problem is in some sense avoided, because the case is consid= ered to be solved by the principles of subrogation, which are not understood= as an example of unjust enrichment. In the English of Quebec civil law, sub= rogation may be conventional (by agreement) or legal (arising by operation o= f law). The key provision on legal subrogation in the Civil Code of Qu&eacut= e;bec is:<BR> </SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><B>1656.</B= >  Subrogation takes place by operation of law<BR>  1) in favour of a creditor who pays another creditor whose claim is p= referred to his because of a prior claim or a hypothec;<BR>  2) in favour of the acquirer of a property who pays a creditor whose = claim is secured by a hypothec on the property;<BR>  3) in favour of a person who pays a debt to which he is bound with ot= hers or for others and which he has an interest in paying;<BR>  4) in favour of an heir who pays with his own funds a debt of the suc= cession for which he was not bound;<BR>  5) in any other case provided by law.<BR> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">The reference in paragraph (5= ) to ‘provided by law’ means ‘by statute law’, that = is, somewhere else in the Code or in some statute. It is paragraph (3) that = would give a claim for contribution or reimbursement on Charles’ facts= (unless the parties were co-sureties). Similarly, the case of guarantees (c= alled sureties in the English text of the Code) is specifically regulated, i= ncluding a surety’s claim against the primary debtor, and claims among= sureties (arts. 2356-60; the English text is on line at <a href=3D"http://www= 2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=3D2&fil e=3D/= CCQ/CCQ_A.html)">http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/ t= elecharge.php?type=3D2&file=3D/CCQ/CCQ_A.html)</a><BR> <BR> One could argue (indeed, in a recent article I did) that in this context, t= he technique of codification hides the problem rather than solving it in an = intellectually satisfying way. The contract of surety, for example, is a spe= cial or nominate contract, and the articles mentioned above appear in the ru= les relating to this special contract, which themselves are situated in the = part of the code that provides special rules for all the nominate contracts = (sale, mandate, partnership, gift etc). The result is that if a co-surety is= claiming contribution against another co-surety, he can point to the rule i= n art. 2360; he does not have to use the provisions on unjust enrichment whi= ch make reference to ‘absence of justification’. But if the subr= ogation/contribution rules are actually rules about unjust enrichment, then = the structure of the Code tends to conceal the question of principle that Ch= arles raises. <BR> <BR> Lionel<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> On 28/11/07 11:16, "Charles Mitchell" <charles.mitchell@KCL.AC= .UK> wrote:<BR> <BR> </FONT></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><FONT FACE=3D"Verdan= a, Helvetica, Arial">I'm afraid I can't answer Jacques' question, but I woul= d like to an additional question of my own, by way of footnote to (distracti= on from?) his interesting comments on the difficulties experienced in civil = law jurisdictions with cases where payments are made to discharge debts whic= h turn out not to have been due.  I believe that civil law / mixed juri= sdictions have also had difficulties with payments of debts for the payment = of which the claimant WAS liable, but which should more properly have been p= aid in part or in full by a defendant who was also liable for the same debt = (i.e. cases which are treated in common law systems as claims for contributi= on or reimbursement).  Since the debt owed by the claimant to the credi= tor in these cases was due, one could say that there was legal ground for th= e creditor's payment, suggesting that there is a legal justification for the= transfer on which not only the creditor but also the defendant can rely, in= the event that the claimant tries to get his money back - cf </FONT><FONT F= ACE=3D"Arial">Pothier, <I>Traité des Obligations </I>2.2.7.4<I>. </I> H= ence I believe that civilian jurists have had to finesse this point in order= to allow recovery - but I'd be interested to hear from people in civilian /= mixed jurisdictions how this works out exactly.  </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Ve= rdana, Helvetica, Arial">Best wishes, Charles<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> At 17:11 28/11/2007 +0200, Du Plessis, Jacques, Prof <jedp@sun.ac.za>= wrote:<BR> </FONT></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><FONT FACE=3D"Verdan= a, Helvetica, Arial">I am relieved to hear that Duncan is not going after si= ne causa/absence<BR> of legal ground as a principle in all cases in all jurisdictions. Martin<BR= > has already provided a Scottish perspective. As far as South African law<BR= > is concerned, may I briefly add the following. <BR> <BR> The South African experience with requiring proof of factors such as<BR> excusable mistake and compulsion to obtain restitution of transfers<BR> which were aimed at discharging liability but failed to do so (ie<BR> transfers which were not not due) has in fact not been a happy one. Some<BR= > problems with determining the quality of the mistake or degree of<BR> compulsion have been similar to those experienced in the common law. An<BR> inability to make these determinations has at times even forced us back<BR> into the arms of fictional implied contracts, which is clearly not where<BR= > we want to be. <BR> <BR> At a colloquium recently held in Stellenbosch on the future development<BR> of the South African law of unjustified enrichment, there was a clear<BR> appreciation on the side of many participants that we need to move away<BR> from the current approach. No-one is saying that a transfer which is not<BR= > due must always be recoverable. It is accepted that there are<BR> circumstances when the recipient should be entitled to retain the<BR> transfer even though it is not due. The problem is identifying which<BR> recipient requires such protection. One possible answer is that it is<BR> the recipient who was brought under the impression that he could keep<BR> the transfer irrespective of whether it was due or not. Such a test<BR> avoids necessarily having to determine whether the transferor actually<BR> or supposedly knew/was in doubt/was ignorant about liability, or having<BR> to differentiate between the effects of various degrees of<BR> compulsion/pressure/influence on the transferor's mind; the focus is on<BR> the recipient, and on determining whether his reliance is such that he<BR> deserves to keep the undue payment.<BR> <BR> How does all of this fit in with the sine causa requirement? In essence,<BR= > one can say that the failure of the transfer to discharge a due debt<BR> prima facie means there is no legal basis for its retention; but whether<BR= > it ultimately is retained without legal ground depends on whether the<BR> test above is met.  <BR> <BR> It would be interesting to hear of situations involving payments which<BR> are not due where such a test would give rise to unacceptable results,<BR> compared to an approach which requires that the undue payment must have<BR> been made under mistake or compulsion.<BR> <BR> Best wishes<BR> <BR> Jacques du Plessis<BR> <BR> Prof Jacques du Plessis<BR> Faculty of Law<BR> University of Stellenbosch<BR> Private Bag X1<BR> Stellenbosch 7602<BR> South Africa<BR> Telephone:  0027 (0)21 808 3189<BR> Fax:  0027 (0)21 886 6235<BR> Courier: Ou Hoofgebou,c/o Ryneveldt & Andringa  Streets, Stellenbo= sch,<BR> South Africa<BR> <BR> ____________________________________________________________________<BR>  This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group,<= BR>  an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law<= BR>  of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment&q= uot; in<BR>  the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubsc= ribe,<BR>  send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a po= sting to<BR>  all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The li= st is<BR>  run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca&= gt;. <BR> ____________________________________________________________________ This m= essage was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an internatio= nal internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment= . To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a messa= ge to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send "signoff e= nrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members,= send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel Smith= of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>.<BR> </FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE=3D'font- size:12.0px'><FON= T FACE=3D"Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR> </FONT></SPAN> </BODY> </HTML> ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>. --B_3290099601_536536-- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 17:45:35 +0000 Reply-To: johanndieckmann@yahoo.de Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues <ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA> From: Johann Dieckmann <johanndieckmann@YAHOO.DE> Subject: Re: RDG: Birksian/sine causa approach to enrichment law Comments: To: Lionel Smith <lionel.smith@MCGILL.CA> In-Reply-To: <C41AEF91.11594%lionel.smith@mcgill.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lionel rightly states, that the structure of the Civil Code of Queb=C3=A9c = would tend to conceal the question of principle, if subrogation/contributio= n rules were rules about unjust enrichment .=20 Maybe a view from the =E2=80=9Ccivilian=E2=80=9D side on subrogation might = be of interest to try to assess the correct qualification of subrogation. The provision of Art. 1656 CCQ is one form of subrogation in the civil law = world. It goes back to similar sections in the Code Napoleon (1804). Equiva= lent rules were/are contained in the Prussian land law (1794), the Austrian= General Civil Code (1811), the Saxonian Civil Code (1866), and the German = Civil Code (1900). The European ius commune granted the paying guarantor th= e beneficium cedendarum actionum, as did the classical Roman law, and as st= ill does, eg, Scots law.=20 The continental codifications preserved the idea behind ben. ced. act.: let= the paying guarantor have the creditor=C2=B4s rights against the principal= (securities, judgments, main debt) for his recourse. The creditor derives = from the creditor the means of recourse. The aforementioned codes only intr= oduced different techniques for this derivative form of reimbursement. Now, all of the codes have rules on =E2=80=9Cunjustified enrichment=E2=80= =9D, and all of them have provisions on =E2=80=9Cderivative recourse=E2=80= =9D. Interestingly enough, none of the codes treats =E2=80=9Csubrogation=E2= =80=9D in the part on ue. And, none of the rules on ue are similar to the t= echnique of subrogation. The same is true for the Roman sources. So, in an =E2=80=93 admittedly =E2=80=93 formal sense the civilian legislat= ions do not consider =E2=80=9Csubrogation=E2=80=9D as a remedy for overcomi= ng ue.=20 This fact is supported by more substantive arguments. The codes do not tell= us why derivative recourse is granted. The civil law authors dealing with = the equivalent rules to subrogation, and the courts applying these rules, h= ave not been so reluctant as to state a view on the justification. On the = contrary, divergent views as to the justification have been offered. The pr= evailing views have not taken any unjustified-enrichment related argument i= nto account. Only few mention a possible relationship. Of the commentators, eg, on the current German law, there is not one to adv= ocate an enrichment analysis of =C2=A7 774 BGB (the German subrogation equi= valent). None of the decisions of the courts even mentions it. And this is= so, although there is a huge mass of literature being published on enrichm= ent law, and there are many cases on enrichment issues. Despite the presen= ce of rules, literature, and case law on unjustified enrichment, derivative= recourse is not considered to form part of the law of unjust enrichment. If the structure of the codes, and the substantive explanations of courts a= nd scholars do not support the view that unjust enrichment is the essence o= f subrogation - maybe it really is not.=20 Johann Dieckmann --- Lionel Smith <lionel.smith@MCGILL.CA> schrieb am Fr, 4.4.2008: > Von: Lionel Smith <lionel.smith@MCGILL.CA> > Betreff: Re: [RDG] RDG: Birksian/sine causa approach to enrichment law > An: ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA > Datum: Freitag, 4. April 2008, 2:33 > Although this may be a record for late replies, I will weigh > in on Charles=C2=B9 > question, at least from the perspective of Quebec law. I > suspect that the > Quebec solution is one that other codified civilian > systems, and at least > some non-codified civilian/mixed systems, share. >=20 > In Quebec, the problem is in some sense avoided, because > the case is > considered to be solved by the principles of subrogation, > which are not > understood as an example of unjust enrichment. In the > English of Quebec > civil law, subrogation may be conventional (by agreement) > or legal (arising > by operation of law). The key provision on legal > subrogation in the Civil > Code of Qu=C3=A9bec is: > 1656. Subrogation takes place by operation of law > 1) in favour of a creditor who pays another creditor whose > claim is > preferred to his because of a prior claim or a hypothec; > 2) in favour of the acquirer of a property who pays a > creditor whose claim > is secured by a hypothec on the property; > 3) in favour of a person who pays a debt to which he is > bound with others > or for others and which he has an interest in paying; > 4) in favour of an heir who pays with his own funds a debt > of the > succession for which he was not bound; > 5) in any other case provided by law. > The reference in paragraph (5) to =C5=92provided by law=C2=B9 means > =C5=92by statute law=C2=B9, > that is, somewhere else in the Code or in some statute. It > is paragraph (3) > that would give a claim for contribution or reimbursement > on Charles=C2=B9 facts > (unless the parties were co-sureties). Similarly, the case > of guarantees > (called sureties in the English text of the Code) is > specifically regulated, > including a surety=C2=B9s claim against the primary debtor, and > claims among > sureties (arts. 2356-60; the English text is on line at > http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?= typ > e=3D2&file=3D/CCQ/CCQ_A.html) >=20 > One could argue (indeed, in a recent article I did) that in > this context, > the technique of codification hides the problem rather than > solving it in an > intellectually satisfying way. The contract of surety, for > example, is a > special or nominate contract, and the articles mentioned > above appear in the > rules relating to this special contract, which themselves > are situated in > the part of the code that provides special rules for all > the nominate > contracts (sale, mandate, partnership, gift etc). The > result is that if a > co-surety is claiming contribution against another > co-surety, he can point > to the rule in art. 2360; he does not have to use the > provisions on unjust > enrichment which make reference to =C5=92absence of > justification=C2=B9. But if the > subrogation/contribution rules are actually rules about > unjust enrichment, > then the structure of the Code tends to conceal the > question of principle > that Charles raises. >=20 > Lionel >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 28/11/07 11:16, "Charles Mitchell" > <charles.mitchell@KCL.AC.UK> wrote: >=20 > > I'm afraid I can't answer Jacques' > question, but I would like to an additional > > question of my own, by way of footnote to (distraction > from?) his interesting > > comments on the difficulties experienced in civil law > jurisdictions with cases > > where payments are made to discharge debts which turn > out not to have been > > due. I believe that civil law / mixed jurisdictions > have also had > > difficulties with payments of debts for the payment of > which the claimant WAS > > liable, but which should more properly have been paid > in part or in full by a > > defendant who was also liable for the same debt (i.e. > cases which are treated > > in common law systems as claims for contribution or > reimbursement). Since the > > debt owed by the claimant to the creditor in these > cases was due, one could > > say that there was legal ground for the creditor's > payment, suggesting that > > there is a legal justification for the transfer on > which not only the creditor > > but also the defendant can rely, in the event that the > claimant tries to get > > his money back - cf Pothier, Trait=C3=A9 des Obligations > 2.2.7.4. Hence I believe > > that civilian jurists have had to finesse this point > in order to allow > > recovery - but I'd be interested to hear from > people in civilian / mixed > > jurisdictions how this works out exactly. Best > wishes, Charles > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > At 17:11 28/11/2007 +0200, Du Plessis, Jacques, Prof > <jedp@sun.ac.za> wrote: > >> I am relieved to hear that Duncan is not going > after sine causa/absence > >> of legal ground as a principle in all cases in all > jurisdictions. Martin > >> has already provided a Scottish perspective. As > far as South African law > >> is concerned, may I briefly add the following. > >>=20 > >> The South African experience with requiring proof > of factors such as > >> excusable mistake and compulsion to obtain > restitution of transfers > >> which were aimed at discharging liability but > failed to do so (ie > >> transfers which were not not due) has in fact not > been a happy one. Some > >> problems with determining the quality of the > mistake or degree of > >> compulsion have been similar to those experienced > in the common law. An > >> inability to make these determinations has at > times even forced us back > >> into the arms of fictional implied contracts, > which is clearly not where > >> we want to be.=20 > >>=20 > >> At a colloquium recently held in Stellenbosch on > the future development > >> of the South African law of unjustified > enrichment, there was a clear > >> appreciation on the side of many participants that > we need to move away > >> from the current approach. No-one is saying that a > transfer which is not > >> due must always be recoverable. It is accepted > that there are > >> circumstances when the recipient should be > entitled to retain the > >> transfer even though it is not due. The problem is > identifying which > >> recipient requires such protection. One possible > answer is that it is > >> the recipient who was brought under the impression > that he could keep > >> the transfer irrespective of whether it was due or > not. Such a test > >> avoids necessarily having to determine whether the > transferor actually > >> or supposedly knew/was in doubt/was ignorant about > liability, or having > >> to differentiate between the effects of various > degrees of > >> compulsion/pressure/influence on the > transferor's mind; the focus is on > >> the recipient, and on determining whether his > reliance is such that he > >> deserves to keep the undue payment. > >>=20 > >> How does all of this fit in with the sine causa > requirement? In essence, > >> one can say that the failure of the transfer to > discharge a due debt > >> prima facie means there is no legal basis for its > retention; but whether > >> it ultimately is retained without legal ground > depends on whether the > >> test above is met. > >>=20 > >> It would be interesting to hear of situations > involving payments which > >> are not due where such a test would give rise to > unacceptable results, > >> compared to an approach which requires that the > undue payment must have > >> been made under mistake or compulsion. > >>=20 > >> Best wishes > >>=20 > >> Jacques du Plessis > >>=20 > >> Prof Jacques du Plessis > >> Faculty of Law > >> University of Stellenbosch > >> Private Bag X1 > >> Stellenbosch 7602 > >> South Africa > >> Telephone: 0027 (0)21 808 3189 > >> Fax: 0027 (0)21 886 6235 > >> Courier: Ou Hoofgebou,c/o Ryneveldt & Andringa > Streets, Stellenbosch, > >> South Africa > >>=20 > >> > ____________________________________________________________________ > >> This message was delivered through the > Restitution Discussion Group, > >> an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all > aspects of the law > >> of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send > "subscribe enrichment" in > >> the body of a message to > <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, > >> send "signoff enrichment" to the same > address. To make a posting to > >> all group members, send to > <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is > >> run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, > <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>. > >> > ____________________________________________________________________ > This > >> message was delivered through the Restitution > Discussion Group, an > >> international internet LISTSERV devoted to all > aspects of the law of unjust > >> enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe > enrichment" in the body of a > >> message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To > unsubscribe, send "signoff > >> enrichment" to the same address. To make a > posting to all group members, send > >> to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is > run by Lionel Smith of McGill > >> University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>. >=20 >=20 >=20 > ____________________________________________________________________ > This message was delivered through the Restitution > Discussion Group, > an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects > of the law > of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe > enrichment" in > the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. > To unsubscribe, > send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. > To make a posting to > all group members, send to > <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is > run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, > <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>.=0A=0A=0A _________________________________= _________________________=0AGesendet von Yahoo! Mail.=0ADem pfiffigeren Pos= teingang.=0Ahttp://de.overview.mail.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:16:06 -0400 Reply-To: Lionel Smith <lionel.smith@MCGILL.CA> Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues <ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA> From: Lionel Smith <lionel.smith@MCGILL.CA> Subject: Contract, Consideration and Tort Duties Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable I forward this on behalf of Jane Stapleton:LDS. =20 Dear Colleagues, I throw myself at your feet in the hope that you will be able to show me a flaw in the following reasoning and where I might find authority on the point. As I understand orthodox contract doctrine in England and the Commonwealth [I leave Scotland aside], a promise to perform a duty that would be owed anyway is not good consideration. So, for example, if I promise to pay you =A3100 in return for your promise not to defame me in your up-coming law review article, you cannot sue me in contract for the =A3100 when you publish your article without any defamatory mention of me. In exchange for my promise of the =A3100, you gave me nothing more than I would have had in any case: in publishing your article to a third party you were under an obligation not to defame me, an obligation imposed by the law of torts. The scenario in which I am interested is where you DO defame me: clearly I can sue you in the tort of defamation. But I do not think I can sue you in contract because there was not a binding contract between us. Next, I presume obligations are severable: I promise my dentist Polly =A310,000 pounds in return for her promise to extract my upper wisdom teeth o= n Tuesday 8th April 2008. This is an enforceable exchange of contractual promises. I also promise my dentist Fred =A312,000 pounds in return for his promise to extract my lower wisdom teeth on Wednesday 9th April 2008. Now, it is obvious that whenever ANY dentist, even those acting pro bono, extracts teeth that dentist owes a duty of care to the patient: this obligation need not be bought, it is imposed by the law of torts for free. [Indeed, as Cardozo noted, it is even the case that =B3the surgeon who operates without pay, is liable though his negligence is the OMISSION to sterilize his instruments=B2.] On Wednesday 9th April 2008 Fred extracts my lower wisdom teeth carelessly and I suffer a personal injury. I know I can sue Fred in the tort of negligence for compensation for that injury. But I do not see on what basis I could also sue Fred in contract for compensation for my personal injury: Fred was under the obligation of care to me in any case. This suggests that in relation to most duties of care owed by defendants in relation to their own misfeasance [I leave aside areas such as obligations to affirmatively control the conduct of third parties] the obligation is no= t concurrent in tort and contract, but arises solely in the law of torts. Or, much more likely, the problem is that I do not understand the rule in contract about when and why a promise to perform an already owed duty does not constitute the consideration needed to support the contractual enforceability of a promise given in exchange. If I have simply dug myself a hole, please help me out of it! Best wishes from Jane ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:21:13 +0200 Reply-To: "Du Plessis, Jacques, Prof <jedp@sun.ac.za>" <jedp@SUN.AC.ZA> Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues <ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA> From: "Du Plessis, Jacques, Prof <jedp@sun.ac.za>" <jedp@SUN.AC.ZA> Subject: Re: RDG: Birksian/sine causa approach to enrichment law In-Reply-To: A<C41AEF91.11594%lionel.smith@mcgill.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C898B2.4109C6ED" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C898B2.4109C6ED Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you Lionel for re-opening the discusson which Charles initiated = about how civil law systems apply the "absence of legal ground" = requirement in the context of payments of debts for which the claimant = was liable, "but which should more properly have been paid in part or in = full by a defendant who was also liable for the same debt (i.e. cases = which are treated in common law systems as claims for contribution or = reimbursement)". The words "more properly" presumably suggests that we = are not dealing with co-debtors, but rather with cases like suretyship, = where the debtor can be regarded as "more properly" liable than the = surety. Herewith a belated response from the perspective of uncodified = South African civil law, where the surety who pays the creditor has a = variety of a remedies at his disposal:=20 =20 1) If he took cession of the obligation towards the creditor, he could = sue the debtor on the basis of this obligation. The claim is not based = on unjustified enrichment, but on the original obligation. Inasmuch as = the term "subrogation" refers to such a cession, it does not deal with = unjustified enrichment.=20 =20 2) If he agreed to be surety in terms of an agreement with the debtor, = he could claim reimbursement from the debtor in terms of such an = agreement (the actio mandati). The claim for reimbursement is then based = on contract. =20 3) If none of the above situations are at hand, he could still claim = reimbursement from the debtor on the basis of negotiorum gestio = (inelegantly translated as "managing another's affairs"). Traditionally, = this is regarded as a source of obligations distinct from unjustified = enrichment, but I can understand that from a common law perspective the = difference would not be that significant. The surety who incurred = liability contrary to the will of the debtor would not be able to sue = the debtor on the ground of negotiorum gestio. It has been suggested, = though, that a claim based on unjustified enrichment arises in these = circumstances (cf Scholtens 1959 SALJ 266 -271). Where the term = "subrogation" is used in this context, it does deal with unjustified = enrichment.=20 =20 So, what does all of this have to do with the "absence of legal ground" = requirement? Charles states that: =20 "Since the debt owed by the claimant to the creditor in these cases was = due, one could say that there was legal ground for the creditor's = payment, suggesting that there is a legal justification for the transfer = on which not only the creditor but also the defendant can rely, in the = event that the claimant tries to get his money back - cf Pothier, = Trait=E9 des Obligations 2.2.7.4. "=20 =20 In the situation where the surety pays the creditor, there are two = dimensions to the transfer. The first is that the creditor has received = a benefit which was due to him. The retention of this benefit by the = creditor is supported by a legal ground/basis vis-=E0-vis both the = debtor and the surety. The second dimension is that the debtor was = enriched through being released from liability to pay the principal = debt. This enrichment is at the expense of the surety, and as between = the surety and the debtor, there is no legal ground/basis for this = enrichment. I think the problem is that in these three-party cases there = is no legal ground "in the abstract" attached to a transfer; one has to = ask whether enrichment is without legal ground as between specific = parties. =20 The position regarding rights of recourse among co-sureties (cf Pothier = 2 6 7 4) has its own peculiarities; but I suppose that the one co-surety = is not "more properly" liable for the debt than the other. =20 Best wishes =20 Jacques =20 Prof Jacques du Plessis Editor: Stellenbosch Law Review;=20 Redakteur: Stellenbosse Regstydskrif =20 Faculty of Law / Fakulteit Regsgeleerdheid =20 University of Stellenbosch / Universiteit van Stellenbosch=20 Private Bag X1 / Privaatsak X1 Matieland 7602 South Africa / Suid-Afrika Telephone / Telefoon: 0027 (0)21 808 3189 Fax / Faks: 0027 (0)21 886 6235 Courier / Koerier: Ou Hoofgebou,c/o Ryneveldt & Andringa Streets, = Stellenbosch, South Africa =20 ________________________________ From: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues = [mailto:ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA] On Behalf Of Lionel Smith Sent: 04 April 2008 02:33 AM To: ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA Subject: Re: [RDG] RDG: Birksian/sine causa approach to enrichment law Although this may be a record for late replies, I will weigh in on = Charles' question, at least from the perspective of Quebec law. I = suspect that the Quebec solution is one that other codified civilian = systems, and at least some non-codified civilian/mixed systems, share. In Quebec, the problem is in some sense avoided, because the case is = considered to be solved by the principles of subrogation, which are not = understood as an example of unjust enrichment. In the English of Quebec = civil law, subrogation may be conventional (by agreement) or legal = (arising by operation of law). The key provision on legal subrogation in = the Civil Code of Qu=E9bec is: 1656. Subrogation takes place by operation of law 1) in favour of a creditor who pays another creditor whose claim is = preferred to his because of a prior claim or a hypothec; 2) in favour of the acquirer of a property who pays a creditor whose = claim is secured by a hypothec on the property; 3) in favour of a person who pays a debt to which he is bound with = others or for others and which he has an interest in paying; 4) in favour of an heir who pays with his own funds a debt of the = succession for which he was not bound; 5) in any other case provided by law. The reference in paragraph (5) to 'provided by law' means 'by statute = law', that is, somewhere else in the Code or in some statute. It is = paragraph (3) that would give a claim for contribution or reimbursement = on Charles' facts (unless the parties were co-sureties). Similarly, the = case of guarantees (called sureties in the English text of the Code) is = specifically regulated, including a surety's claim against the primary = debtor, and claims among sureties (arts. 2356-60; the English text is on = line at = http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?= type=3D2&file=3D/CCQ/CCQ_A.html) = <http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php= ?type=3D2&file=3D/CCQ/CCQ_A.html)>=20 One could argue (indeed, in a recent article I did) that in this = context, the technique of codification hides the problem rather than = solving it in an intellectually satisfying way. The contract of surety, = for example, is a special or nominate contract, and the articles = mentioned above appear in the rules relating to this special contract, = which themselves are situated in the part of the code that provides = special rules for all the nominate contracts (sale, mandate, = partnership, gift etc). The result is that if a co-surety is claiming = contribution against another co-surety, he can point to the rule in art. = 2360; he does not have to use the provisions on unjust enrichment which = make reference to 'absence of justification'. But if the = subrogation/contribution rules are actually rules about unjust = enrichment, then the structure of the Code tends to conceal the question = of principle that Charles raises.=20 Lionel On 28/11/07 11:16, "Charles Mitchell" <charles.mitchell@KCL.AC.UK> = wrote: I'm afraid I can't answer Jacques' question, but I would like to an = additional question of my own, by way of footnote to (distraction from?) = his interesting comments on the difficulties experienced in civil law = jurisdictions with cases where payments are made to discharge debts = which turn out not to have been due. I believe that civil law / mixed = jurisdictions have also had difficulties with payments of debts for the = payment of which the claimant WAS liable, but which should more properly = have been paid in part or in full by a defendant who was also liable for = the same debt (i.e. cases which are treated in common law systems as = claims for contribution or reimbursement). Since the debt owed by the = claimant to the creditor in these cases was due, one could say that = there was legal ground for the creditor's payment, suggesting that there = is a legal justification for the transfer on which not only the creditor = but also the defendant can rely, in the event that the claimant tries to = get his money back - cf Pothier, Trait=E9 des Obligations 2.2.7.4. Hence = I believe that civilian jurists have had to finesse this point in order = to allow recovery - but I'd be interested to hear from people in = civilian / mixed jurisdictions how this works out exactly. Best wishes, = Charles =09 =09 =09 =09 At 17:11 28/11/2007 +0200, Du Plessis, Jacques, Prof <jedp@sun.ac.za> = wrote: =09 I am relieved to hear that Duncan is not going after sine = causa/absence of legal ground as a principle in all cases in all jurisdictions. = Martin has already provided a Scottish perspective. As far as South African = law is concerned, may I briefly add the following.=20 =09 The South African experience with requiring proof of factors such as excusable mistake and compulsion to obtain restitution of transfers which were aimed at discharging liability but failed to do so (ie transfers which were not not due) has in fact not been a happy one. = Some problems with determining the quality of the mistake or degree of compulsion have been similar to those experienced in the common law. = An inability to make these determinations has at times even forced us = back into the arms of fictional implied contracts, which is clearly not = where we want to be.=20 =09 At a colloquium recently held in Stellenbosch on the future = development of the South African law of unjustified enrichment, there was a clear appreciation on the side of many participants that we need to move = away from the current approach. No-one is saying that a transfer which is = not due must always be recoverable. It is accepted that there are circumstances when the recipient should be entitled to retain the transfer even though it is not due. The problem is identifying which recipient requires such protection. One possible answer is that it is the recipient who was brought under the impression that he could keep the transfer irrespective of whether it was due or not. Such a test avoids necessarily having to determine whether the transferor actually or supposedly knew/was in doubt/was ignorant about liability, or = having to differentiate between the effects of various degrees of compulsion/pressure/influence on the transferor's mind; the focus is = on the recipient, and on determining whether his reliance is such that he deserves to keep the undue payment. =09 How does all of this fit in with the sine causa requirement? In = essence, one can say that the failure of the transfer to discharge a due debt prima facie means there is no legal basis for its retention; but = whether it ultimately is retained without legal ground depends on whether the test above is met. =20 =09 It would be interesting to hear of situations involving payments which are not due where such a test would give rise to unacceptable results, compared to an approach which requires that the undue payment must = have been made under mistake or compulsion. =09 Best wishes =09 Jacques du Plessis =09 Prof Jacques du Plessis Faculty of Law University of Stellenbosch Private Bag X1 Stellenbosch 7602 South Africa Telephone: 0027 (0)21 808 3189 Fax: 0027 (0)21 886 6235 Courier: Ou Hoofgebou,c/o Ryneveldt & Andringa Streets, Stellenbosch, South Africa =09 ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>.=20 ____________________________________________________________________ = This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an = international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of = unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body = of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send = "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group = members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel = Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>. =09 ____________________________________________________________________ = This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an = international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of = unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body = of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send = "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group = members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel = Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>.=20 ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C898B2.4109C6ED Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML xmlns:o =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:st1 = =3D=20 "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [RDG] RDG: = Birksian/sine causa approach to enrichment law
Thank you=20 Lionel for re-opening the discusson which Charles initiated about how = civil law=20 systems apply the "absence of legal ground" requirement in the context = of =20 payments of debts for which the claimant was liable, "but which = should more=20 properly have been paid in part or in full by a defendant who was also = liable=20 for the same debt (i.e. cases which are treated in common law systems as = claims=20 for contribution or reimbursement)". The words "more = properly"=20 presumably suggests that we are not dealing with co-debtors, but rather = with=20 cases like suretyship, where the debtor can be regarded as "more = properly"=20 liable than the surety. Herewith a belated response from the = perspective of=20 uncodified South African civil law, where the surety who = pays=20 the creditor has a variety of a remedies at his disposal:=20
 

1) = If he took cession of the obligation towards the creditor, he = could sue=20 the debtor on the basis of this=20 obligation. = The claim=20 is not based on unjustified enrichment, but on the original obligation. Inasmuch as the term "subrogation" refers = to such a cession, it does not deal with unjustified = enrichment.=20

 

2) = If he agreed to be surety in terms of an agreement with the = debtor, he=20 could claim reimbursement from the debtor in terms of such an agreement = (the=20 actio mandati). The claim for = reimbursement is=20 then based on contract.

 

3) If none of the = above=20 situations are at hand, he could still claim reimbursement from the = debtor on=20 the basis of negotiorum gestio (inelegantly=20 translated as "managing another's affairs"). Traditionally, this is regarded as a = source of=20 obligations distinct from = unjustified=20 enrichment, but I can understand that from a common law perspective the=20 difference would not = be that significant. The surety who = incurred liability contrary to the will of the debtor = would not=20 be able to sue the debtor on the ground of negotiorum = gestio. It has been = suggested, though, that a claim based on unjustified enrichment arises in these circumstances (cf = Scholtens=20 1959 SALJ 266 -271). Where the term "subrogation" is used in this = context,=20 it does deal with unjustified = enrichment. 

 

So,=20 what does all of this have to do with the =93absence of = legal ground=94=20 requirement? Charles states=20 that:

 

 =93Since the debt = owed by the=20 claimant to the creditor in these cases was due, one could say that = there was=20 legal ground for the creditor's payment, suggesting that there is a = legal=20 justification for the transfer on which not only the creditor but also = the=20 defendant can rely, in the event that the claimant tries to get his = money back -=20 cf Pothier,=20 Trait=E9 des Obligations 2.2.7.4. = =93 

 

In the situation where the surety pays the = creditor,=20 there are two dimensions to the = transfer. The=20 first is that the creditor has received a benefit which was due to = him. The=20 retention of this benefit by the creditor is supported by a legal=20 ground/basis vis-=E0-vis = both the=20 debtor and the surety. The second dimension is that the debtor was = enriched=20 through being released from liability to pay the principal debt. This = enrichment=20 is at the expense of the surety, and as between the surety and the = debtor,=20 there is no legal ground/basis for this enrichment. I think the = problem is=20 that in these three-party cases there is no legal ground "in the = abstract"=20 attached to a transfer; one has to ask whether enrichment is = without legal=20 ground as between specific parties.

 

The=20 position regarding rights of recourse among co-sureties (cf Pothier 2 6 = 7 4) has=20 its own peculiarities; but I suppose that the one co-surety is not = "more=20 properly" liable for the debt than the other.

 

Best=20 wishes

 

Jacques

 

 Prof Jacques du=20 Plessis

Editor: = Stellenbosch Law=20 Review;
Redakteur: = Stellenbosse=20 Regstydskrif
 
Faculty of Law / = Fakulteit=20 Regsgeleerdheid      
University of = Stellenbosch /=20 Universiteit van Stellenbosch 
Private Bag X1 / = Privaatsak X1
Matieland = 7602
South Africa /=20 Suid-Afrika
Telephone /=20 Telefoon:  0027 (0)21 808 3189
Fax /=20 Faks:  0027 (0)21 886 6235
Courier / = Koerier: Ou=20 Hoofgebou,c/o Ryneveldt & Andringa  Streets, Stellenbosch, = South=20 Africa
 

From: Enrichment - = Restitution &=20 Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues [mailto:ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA] On = Behalf=20 Of Lionel Smith
Sent: 04 April 2008 02:33 AM
To: = ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA
Subject: Re: [RDG] RDG: = Birksian/sine causa=20 approach to enrichment law

Although this may be a record for late replies, I = will weigh=20 in on Charles=92 question, at least from the perspective of Quebec law. = I suspect=20 that the Quebec solution is one that other codified civilian systems, = and at=20 least some non-codified civilian/mixed systems, share.

In Quebec, = the=20 problem is in some sense avoided, because the case is considered to be = solved by=20 the principles of subrogation, which are not understood as an example of = unjust=20 enrichment. In the English of Quebec civil law, subrogation may be = conventional=20 (by agreement) or legal (arising by operation of law). The key provision = on=20 legal subrogation in the Civil Code of Qu=E9bec = is:
1656. =  Subrogation takes place by operation of law
 1) in favour = of a=20 creditor who pays another creditor whose claim is preferred to his = because of a=20 prior claim or a hypothec;
 2) in favour of the acquirer of a = property=20 who pays a creditor whose claim is secured by a hypothec on the=20 property;
 3) in favour of a person who pays a debt to which he = is bound=20 with others or for others and which he has an interest in = paying;
 4) in=20 favour of an heir who pays with his own funds a debt of the succession = for which=20 he was not bound;
 5) in any other case provided by law.
The=20 reference in paragraph (5) to =91provided by law=92 means =91by statute = law=92, that is,=20 somewhere else in the Code or in some statute. It is paragraph (3) that = would=20 give a claim for contribution or reimbursement on Charles=92 facts = (unless the=20 parties were co-sureties). Similarly, the case of guarantees (called = sureties in=20 the English text of the Code) is specifically regulated, including a = surety=92s=20 claim against the primary debtor, and claims among sureties (arts. = 2356-60; the=20 English text is on line at http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telech= arge.php?type=3D2&file=3D/CCQ/CCQ_A.html)

One could argue (indeed, in a recent article I = did) that in=20 this context, the technique of codification hides the problem rather = than=20 solving it in an intellectually satisfying way. The contract of surety, = for=20 example, is a special or nominate contract, and the articles mentioned = above=20 appear in the rules relating to this special contract, which themselves = are=20 situated in the part of the code that provides special rules for all the = nominate contracts (sale, mandate, partnership, gift etc). The result is = that if=20 a co-surety is claiming contribution against another co-surety, he can = point to=20 the rule in art. 2360; he does not have to use the provisions on unjust=20 enrichment which make reference to =91absence of justification=92. But = if the=20 subrogation/contribution rules are actually rules about unjust = enrichment, then=20 the structure of the Code tends to conceal the question of principle = that=20 Charles raises.

Lionel



On 28/11/07 11:16, = "Charles=20 Mitchell" <charles.mitchell@KCL.AC.UK> = wrote:

I'm afraid I=20 can't answer Jacques' question, but I would like to an additional = question of=20 my own, by way of footnote to (distraction from?) his interesting = comments on=20 the difficulties experienced in civil law jurisdictions with cases = where=20 payments are made to discharge debts which turn out not to have been = due.=20  I believe that civil law / mixed jurisdictions have also had=20 difficulties with payments of debts for the payment of which the = claimant WAS=20 liable, but which should more properly have been paid in part or in = full by a=20 defendant who was also liable for the same debt (i.e. cases which are = treated=20 in common law systems as claims for contribution or=20 reimbursement).  Since the debt owed by the claimant to the = creditor=20 in these cases was due, one could say that there was legal ground for = the=20 creditor's payment, suggesting that there is a legal justification for = the=20 transfer on which not only the creditor but also the defendant can = rely, in=20 the event that the claimant tries to get his money back - cf Pothier,=20 Trait=E9 des Obligations 2.2.7.4. Hence I believe that = civilian=20 jurists have had to finesse this point in order to allow recovery - = but I'd be=20 interested to hear from people in civilian / mixed jurisdictions how = this=20 works out exactly.  Best wishes, Charles




At = 17:11=20 28/11/2007 +0200, Du Plessis, Jacques, Prof <jedp@sun.ac.za>=20 wrote:
I am=20 relieved to hear that Duncan is not going after sine = causa/absence
of=20 legal ground as a principle in all cases in all jurisdictions. = Martin
has=20 already provided a Scottish perspective. As far as South African = law
is=20 concerned, may I briefly add the following.

The South = African=20 experience with requiring proof of factors such as
excusable = mistake and=20 compulsion to obtain restitution of transfers
which were aimed at = discharging liability but failed to do so (ie
transfers which = were not=20 not due) has in fact not been a happy one. Some
problems with = determining=20 the quality of the mistake or degree of
compulsion have been = similar to=20 those experienced in the common law. An
inability to make these=20 determinations has at times even forced us back
into the arms of=20 fictional implied contracts, which is clearly not where
we want = to be.=20

At a colloquium recently held in Stellenbosch on the future=20 development
of the South African law of unjustified enrichment, = there was=20 a clear
appreciation on the side of many participants that we = need to=20 move away
from the current approach. No-one is saying that a = transfer=20 which is not
due must always be recoverable. It is accepted that = there=20 are
circumstances when the recipient should be entitled to retain = the
transfer even though it is not due. The problem is = identifying=20 which
recipient requires such protection. One possible answer is = that it=20 is
the recipient who was brought under the impression that he = could=20 keep
the transfer irrespective of whether it was due or not. Such = a=20 test
avoids necessarily having to determine whether the = transferor=20 actually
or supposedly knew/was in doubt/was ignorant about = liability, or=20 having
to differentiate between the effects of various degrees=20 of
compulsion/pressure/influence on the transferor's mind; the = focus is=20 on
the recipient, and on determining whether his reliance is such = that=20 he
deserves to keep the undue payment.

How does all of = this fit in=20 with the sine causa requirement? In essence,
one can say that the = failure=20 of the transfer to discharge a due debt
prima facie means there = is no=20 legal basis for its retention; but whether
it ultimately is = retained=20 without legal ground depends on whether the
test above is met.=20  

It would be interesting to hear of situations = involving=20 payments which
are not due where such a test would give rise to=20 unacceptable results,
compared to an approach which requires that = the=20 undue payment must have
been made under mistake or=20 compulsion.

Best wishes

Jacques du Plessis

Prof = Jacques=20 du Plessis
Faculty of Law
University of = Stellenbosch
Private Bag=20 X1
Stellenbosch 7602
South Africa
Telephone:  0027 = (0)21 808=20 3189
Fax:  0027 (0)21 886 6235
Courier: Ou Hoofgebou,c/o=20 Ryneveldt & Andringa  Streets, Stellenbosch,
South=20 = Africa

___________________________________________________________= _________
 This=20 message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion = Group,
 an=20 international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the=20 law
 of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe = enrichment"=20 in
 the body of a message to = <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To=20 unsubscribe,
 send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. = To make=20 a posting to
 all group members, send to=20 <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is
 run by = Lionel Smith=20 of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>.=20 =
____________________________________________________________________ = This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, = an=20 international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of = unjust=20 enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of = a=20 message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send = "signoff=20 enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group = members,=20 send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by = Lionel Smith=20 of McGill University,=20 = <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>.

________________________________________________________________= ____ This=20 message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an = international=20 internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust = enrichment. To=20 subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to=20 <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send "signoff = enrichment" to=20 the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to=20 <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel Smith of = McGill=20 University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>. ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C898B2.4109C6ED-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 15:34:21 +0100 Reply-To: Eoin O'Dell Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Eoin O'Dell Subject: Re: Contract, Consideration and Tort Duties Comments: To: obligations@uwo.ca In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, Thanks, Jane, for posing a real conundrum. I have learned a lot from the = various responses. But I have a question regarding an element of Jane's analysis = that has not yet been taken up in the discussion. Jane begins with the basic Contract law doctrine that: > a promise to perform a duty that would be owed anyway is not good > consideration. She then poses a hypothetical: > if I promise to pay you =A3100 in return for your promise not to defame= me > in your up-coming law review article, you cannot sue me in contract for > the =A3100 when you publish your article without any defamatory mention= of > me. In exchange for my promise of the =A3100, you gave me nothing more = than > I would have had in any case: in publishing your article to a third pa= rty > you were under an obligation not to defame me, an obligation imposed by= the > law of torts. Far be it for me to trespass into Jane's specialist area of the law of to= rts, but I think the conceptual problems she is encountering come from the characterisation of the issue on the torts side of the line rather than o= n the contracts side of the line. Is it really the case that the law of torts i= mposes an obligation to refrain from committing torts; or does it merely impose = an obligation to compensate if a tort is committed? The latter, of course, c= reates a practical incentive not to commit the tort, but it does not amount to a legally enforceable obligation not to commit it. More to the point, it wo= uld mean that, in general, the tort obligation is not triggered until the tor= t has been committed. I know that there are deep analytical waters here in the proper character= isation of the tort-based obligation, but the difficulties which Jane's hypotheti= cal have in the context of the doctrine of consideration in the law of contra= ct might provide one ground to see the tort obligation as being triggered on= ly when the tort is committed. If this is so, then there is no problem in finding consideration in the c= ontext of Jane's promise to pay me =A3100 in return for her promise not to defam= e me in her up-coming law review article; there is no obligation as such not to d= efame me, and so refraining from doing so is not the performance of a pre-exist= ing obligation. Despite the great questions of the nature of obligations in the tort, thi= s seems to be too superficial a resolution to Jane's first hypothetical. So, what= am I missing? Eoin. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Dr Eoin O'Dell main: +353-1-896 1125 Fellow & Senior Lecturer direct: +353-1-896 1178 Director of Research mobile: +353-87-2021120 School of Law main fax: +353-1-677 0449 Trinity College blog: http://www.cearta.ie Dublin 2 web: http://www.eoinodell.com Ireland odelle@tcd.ie \ eoin.odell@tcd.ie ------------------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions are personal: no legal responsibility is accepted for this email or attachments, which may be confidential or privileged or subject to a Freedom of Information request: if you have received this in error, let me know and delete it. Please think 'green' before printing. Thanks. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, . ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 14:48:03 +0100 Reply-To: James Lee Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: James Lee Subject: Court of Appeal Decision on Recovery of Mistakenly Paid Tax MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C89A48.5581C2F2" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C89A48.5581C2F2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Colleagues, =20 Members may be interested to note that the Court of Appeal has just handed down a decision in Monro v HM Revenue & Customs [2008] EWCA Civ 306 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/306.html. Answering a question alluded to but not answered in DMG v IRC, the Court holds that where s. 33 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 applies, the statutory scheme displaces the common law claim that would otherwise be available. =20 At [23], Arden LJ concludes: "Undoubtedly, Mr Monro paid money under mistake of law, and a remedy at common law in general exists in that situation. Such a right can, however, be excluded by express words or necessary implication. In this case, the implication arises because Parliament has created a specific remedy with a limitation to exclude payments made under generally accepted practice. That limitation would be defeated if the court permitted an action to be brought at common law. That principle applies even though the statute is a taxing statute which must be interpreted so as not to impose burdens on the taxpayer unfairly. I have already discussed the obvious purpose of subs (2A). It would make a nonsense of that purpose if it was possible to bring an action at common law for the recovery of money in circumstances where s 33(1) applies." =20 Best wishes, =20 James =20 =20 -- James Lee Teaching Fellow School of Law University of Reading Foxhill House, rm. 2.09 Whiteknights Road, Earley Reading RG6 7BA United Kingdom =20 Phone: +44 (0) 118 378 5643 Fax: +44 (0) 118 378 4543 Email: j.s.lee@reading.ac.uk Web: www.reading.ac.uk/law =20 =20 ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, . ------_=_NextPart_001_01C89A48.5581C2F2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Colleagues,

 

Members may be interested to note that the Court of = Appeal has just handed down a decision in Monro v HM Revenue & Customs [2008] EWCA Civ 306
http://www= .bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/306.html. Answering a question alluded to but not answered in DMG v IRC, the Court holds that where s. 33 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 applies, = the statutory scheme displaces the common law claim that would otherwise be available.

 

At [23], Arden LJ = concludes: “Undoubtedly, Mr Monro paid money = under mistake of law, and a remedy at common law in general exists in that = situation. Such a right can, however, be excluded by express words or necessary implication. In this case, the implication arises because Parliament has created a specific remedy with a limitation to exclude payments made = under generally accepted practice. That limitation would be defeated if the = court permitted an action to be brought at common law. That principle applies = even though the statute is a taxing statute which must be interpreted so as = not to impose burdens on the taxpayer unfairly. I have already discussed the = obvious purpose of subs (2A). It would make a nonsense of that purpose if it was possible to bring an action at common law for the recovery of money in circumstances where s 33(1) = applies.”

 

Best wishes,

 

James

 

 

--

James Lee

Teaching Fellow

School of Law

University of Reading

Foxhill House, rm. 2.09

Whiteknights Road, Earley

Reading RG6 7BA

United Kingdom

 

Phone: +44 (0) 118 378 5643

Fax: +44 (0) 118 378 4543

Email: j.s.lee@reading.ac.uk

Web: www.reading.ac.uk/law

 

 

____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C89A48.5581C2F2-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:35:21 +0100 Reply-To: Andrew Tettenborn Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Andrew Tettenborn Subject: Road to ruin? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Is it possible to build a road by mistake? Apparently yes. For those who want a bit of light relief, see J S Bloor Ltd v Pavillion Developments Ltd [2008] EWHC 724 (TCC) (14 March 2008). A builds a stretch of road on B's land which he doesn't have to. Nevertheless his claim in UE fails: there's no free acceptance by B (what can you do with tarmac apart from drive on it?). And even assuming that incontrovertible benefit is a ground of recovery there isn't any here: the benefit of a road built by someone you didn't choose, arguably of indifferent quality, isn't an obvious benefit at all. Andrew -- Andrew Tettenborn MA LLB Bracton Professor of Law University of Exeter, England Tel: 01392-263189 / +44-392-263189 (outside UK) Cellphone: 07870-130528 / +44-7870-130528 (outside UK) Fax: 01392-263196 / +44-392-263196 (outside UK) Snailmail: School of Law, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ England Exeter Law School homepage: http://www.law.ex.ac.uk My homepage: http://www.law.ex.ac.uk/staff/tettenborn.shtml LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law (Ambrose Bierce, 1906). ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, . ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:32:06 -0400 Reply-To: Lionel Smith Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Lionel Smith Subject: Structure and Justification in Private Law In-Reply-To: <6D07011F8E7B5E4586A5C42BC4BBA204B78BD5@hartp01.hartpub.co.uk> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3291363126_553231" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3291363126_553231 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable RDG members will be interested to learn of this recently-published book. Congratulations to Charles and Ross, and all the contributors. Lionel > Structure and Justification in Private Law > Essays for Peter Birks > Edited by Charles Rickett and Ross Grantham > Peter Birks's tragically early death, and his immense influence around th= e > world, led immediately to the call for a volume of essays in his honour b= y > scholars who had known him as a colleague, teacher and friend. One such > volume, published in 2006, contained essays largely from scholars working= in > England (Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks, edited by Andr= ew > Burrows and Lord Rodger). This volume contains the essays of those outsi= de > England who chose to honour Peter, and appears later than the English vol= ume, > reflecting the far flung habitations of its authors. The essays contained= in > this volume are focussed around the law of unjust enrichment, but are not > narrowly preoccupied - instead they move freely from unjust enrichment to= some > of the most profound questions in private law concerning taxonomy, the > relationship between contract, property and unjust enrichment, and the pl= ace > of remedies within private law. This volume, featuring the work of some o= f the > world's great private lawyers, provides a fitting tribute to a great scho= lar, > and a series of thought-provoking essays inspired by his example. > Contributors: Kit Barker, Michael Bryan, Peter Butler, Hanoch Dagan, Simo= ne > Degeling, Daniel Friedmann, Mark Gergen, Ross Grantham, Steve Hedley, Joh= n > McCamus, Mitchell McInnes, Eoin O'Dell, Charles Rickett, Struan Scott, Em= ily > Sherwin, Stephen Smith, Richard Sutton, Michael Tilbury, Stephen Waddams, > Peter Watts, Ernest Weinrib, Eric Descheemaeker > Charles EF Rickett, MA, LLB, BD is the Sir Gerard Brennan Professor of La= w and > Head of the TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland. Ross B > Grantham, LLD, BCL, LLM, LLB is Professor of Commercial Law, TC Beirne Sc= hool > of Law, The University of Queensland. > Feb 08 492pp Hbk 9781841138077 =C2=A375 / =E2=82=AC115 > =20 ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, . --B_3291363126_553231 Content-type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Structure and Justification in Private Law RDG m= embers will be interested to learn of this recently-published book. Congratu= lations to Charles and Ross, and all the contributors.
Lionel


Structure and Justification in Privat= e Law
Essays for Peter Birks
Edited by Charles Rick= ett and Ross Grantham
Peter Birks's t= ragically early death, and his immense influence around the world, led immed= iately to the call for a volume of essays in his honour by scholars who had = known him as a colleague, teacher and friend. One such volume, published in = 2006, contained essays largely from scholars working in England (Mapping = the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks, edited by Andrew Burrows and L= ord Rodger).  This volume contains the essays of those outside England = who chose to honour Peter, and appears later than the English volume, reflec= ting the far flung habitations of its authors. The essays contained in this = volume are focussed around the law of unjust enrichment, but are not narrowl= y preoccupied - instead they move freely from unjust enrichment to some of t= he most profound questions in private law concerning taxonomy, the relations= hip between contract, property and unjust enrichment, and the place of remed= ies within private law. This volume, featuring the work of some of the world= 's great private lawyers, provides a fitting tribute to a great scholar, and= a series of thought-provoking essays inspired by his example.  
Contributors: Kit Barker, Michael Bryan, Peter Butler, Hanoch Dagan, Simone= Degeling, Daniel Friedmann, Mark Gergen, Ross Grantham, Steve Hedley, John = McCamus, Mitchell McInnes, Eoin O'Dell, Charles Rickett, Struan Scott, Emily= Sherwin, Stephen Smith, Richard Sutton, Michael Tilbury, Stephen Waddams, P= eter Watts, Ernest Weinrib, Eric Descheemaeker
Charles EF Rickett, MA, LLB, BD is the Sir Gerard Brennan Professor = of Law and Head of the TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland= . Ross B Grantham, LLD, BCL, LLM, LLB is Professor of Commercial Law,= TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland.
Feb 08   492pp  = ;Hbk   9781841138077   £75 / €115  &nbs= p;
<http://www.hartpub. co.= uk/books/details.asp?isbn=3D9781841138077>
____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>. --B_3291363126_553231-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:39:12 +0100 Reply-To: Francis Rose Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Francis Rose Subject: Re: Structure and Justification in Private Law Comments: To: Lionel Smith In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Does this mean that everything in the first tribute must now be called back and burnt? On Fri, April 18, 2008 4:32 pm, Lionel Smith wrote: > RDG members will be interested to learn of this recently-published book. > Congratulations to Charles and Ross, and all the contributors. > Lionel > > >> Structure and Justification in Private Law >> Essays for Peter Birks >> Edited by Charles Rickett and Ross Grantham >> Peter Birks's tragically early death, and his immense influence around >> the >> world, led immediately to the call for a volume of essays in his honou= r >> by >> scholars who had known him as a colleague, teacher and friend. One suc= h >> volume, published in 2006, contained essays largely from scholars >> working in >> England (Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks, edited by >> Andrew >> Burrows and Lord Rodger). This volume contains the essays of those >> outside >> England who chose to honour Peter, and appears later than the English >> volume, >> reflecting the far flung habitations of its authors. The essays >> contained in >> this volume are focussed around the law of unjust enrichment, but are >> not >> narrowly preoccupied - instead they move freely from unjust enrichment >> to some >> of the most profound questions in private law concerning taxonomy, the >> relationship between contract, property and unjust enrichment, and the >> place >> of remedies within private law. This volume, featuring the work of som= e >> of the >> world's great private lawyers, provides a fitting tribute to a great >> scholar, >> and a series of thought-provoking essays inspired by his example. >> Contributors: Kit Barker, Michael Bryan, Peter Butler, Hanoch Dagan, >> Simone >> Degeling, Daniel Friedmann, Mark Gergen, Ross Grantham, Steve Hedley, >> John >> McCamus, Mitchell McInnes, Eoin O'Dell, Charles Rickett, Struan Scott, >> Emily >> Sherwin, Stephen Smith, Richard Sutton, Michael Tilbury, Stephen >> Waddams, >> Peter Watts, Ernest Weinrib, Eric Descheemaeker >> Charles EF Rickett, MA, LLB, BD is the Sir Gerard Brennan Professor of >> Law and >> Head of the TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland. Ros= s >> B >> Grantham, LLD, BCL, LLM, LLB is Professor of Commercial Law, TC Beirne >> School >> of Law, The University of Queensland. >> Feb 08 492pp Hbk 9781841138077 =C2=A375 / =E2=82=AC115 >> > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, > an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law > of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in > the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, > send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to > all group members, send to . The list is > run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, . > ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, . ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:12:02 +0100 Reply-To: Hector MacQueen Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Hector MacQueen Subject: Re: Structure and Justification in Private Law Comments: To: Francis Rose In-Reply-To: <1119.163.1.105.56.1208533152.squirrel@webmail.bris.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The Scots who contributed to (and in one case also edited) "Mapping =20 the Law" may perhaps be forgiven for pointing out that most (by no =20 means all) of the contributors to that volume were from the (still) =20 United Kingdom. The German, Dutch and Italian contributors might =20 claim it was a European Union team! Hector --=20 Hector L MacQueen Professor of Private Law Co-Director, AHRC Research Centre Intellectual Property and Technology Law Edinburgh Law School University of Edinburgh Edinburgh EH8 9YL UK Tel: (0)131-650-2060; Fax: (0)131-662-6317 Quoting Francis Rose : > Does this mean that everything in the first tribute must now be called > back and burnt? > > > On Fri, April 18, 2008 4:32 pm, Lionel Smith wrote: >> RDG members will be interested to learn of this recently-published book. >> Congratulations to Charles and Ross, and all the contributors. >> Lionel >> >> >>> Structure and Justification in Private Law >>> Essays for Peter Birks >>> Edited by Charles Rickett and Ross Grantham >>> Peter Birks's tragically early death, and his immense influence around >>> the >>> world, led immediately to the call for a volume of essays in his honour >>> by >>> scholars who had known him as a colleague, teacher and friend. One such >>> volume, published in 2006, contained essays largely from scholars >>> working in >>> England (Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks, edited by >>> Andrew >>> Burrows and Lord Rodger). This volume contains the essays of those >>> outside >>> England who chose to honour Peter, and appears later than the English >>> volume, >>> reflecting the far flung habitations of its authors. The essays >>> contained in >>> this volume are focussed around the law of unjust enrichment, but are >>> not >>> narrowly preoccupied - instead they move freely from unjust enrichment >>> to some >>> of the most profound questions in private law concerning taxonomy, the >>> relationship between contract, property and unjust enrichment, and the >>> place >>> of remedies within private law. This volume, featuring the work of some >>> of the >>> world's great private lawyers, provides a fitting tribute to a great >>> scholar, >>> and a series of thought-provoking essays inspired by his example. >>> Contributors: Kit Barker, Michael Bryan, Peter Butler, Hanoch Dagan, >>> Simone >>> Degeling, Daniel Friedmann, Mark Gergen, Ross Grantham, Steve Hedley, >>> John >>> McCamus, Mitchell McInnes, Eoin O'Dell, Charles Rickett, Struan Scott, >>> Emily >>> Sherwin, Stephen Smith, Richard Sutton, Michael Tilbury, Stephen >>> Waddams, >>> Peter Watts, Ernest Weinrib, Eric Descheemaeker >>> Charles EF Rickett, MA, LLB, BD is the Sir Gerard Brennan Professor of >>> Law and >>> Head of the TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland. Ross >>> B >>> Grantham, LLD, BCL, LLM, LLB is Professor of Commercial Law, TC Beirne >>> School >>> of Law, The University of Queensland. >>> Feb 08 492pp Hbk 9781841138077 =C3=82=C2=A375 / =C3=A2=C2=82=C2= =AC115 >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________________ >> This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, >> an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law >> of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in >> the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, >> send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to >> all group members, send to . The list is >> run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, . >> > > ____________________________________________________________________ > This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, > an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law > of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in > the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, > send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to > all group members, send to . The list is > run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, . > > --=20 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, . ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:23:05 +0200 Reply-To: Gerhard Dannemann Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Gerhard Dannemann Subject: Re: Structure and Justification in Private Law In-Reply-To: <1119.163.1.105.56.1208533152.squirrel@webmail.bris.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Not unless Eric Descheemaeker has discovered any mistake (or is it absence of basis?) in his list of Peter's publications.


Francis Rose wrote: 
Does this mean that everything in the first tribute must= 

 now be called 

back and burnt? 

 

 

On Fri, April 18, 2008 4:32 pm, Lionel Smith wrote: 

  
RDG members will be interested to learn of this recent= 

ly-published book. 

Congratulations to Charles and Ross, and all the contributors. 

Lionel 

 

 

    
Structure and Justification in Private Law 

Essays for Peter Birks 

Edited by Charles Rickett and Ross Grantham 

Peter Birks's tragically early death, and his immense influence around 

the 

world, led immediately to the call for a volume of essays in his honour 

by 

scholars who had known him as a colleague, teacher and friend. One such 

volume, published in 2006, contained essays largely from scholars 

working in 

England (Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks, edited by 

Andrew 

Burrows and Lord Rodger).  This volume contains the essays of those 

outside 

England who chose to honour Peter, and appears later than the English 

volume, 

reflecting the far flung habitations of its authors. The essays 

contained in 

this volume are focussed around the law of unjust enrichment, but are 

not 

narrowly preoccupied - instead they move freely from unjust enrichment 

to some 

of the most profound questions in private law concerning taxonomy, the 

relationship between contract, property and unjust enrichment, and the 

place 

of remedies within private law. This volume, featuring the work of some 

of the 

world's great private lawyers, provides a fitting tribute to a great 

scholar, 

and a series of thought-provoking essays inspired by his example. 

Contributors: Kit Barker, Michael Bryan, Peter Butler, Hanoch Dagan, 

Simone 

Degeling, Daniel Friedmann, Mark Gergen, Ross Grantham, Steve Hedley, 

John 

McCamus, Mitchell McInnes, Eoin O'Dell, Charles Rickett, Struan Scott, 

Emily 

Sherwin, Stephen Smith, Richard Sutton, Michael Tilbury, Stephen 

Waddams, 

Peter Watts, Ernest Weinrib, Eric Descheemaeker 

Charles EF Rickett, MA, LLB, BD is the Sir Gerard Brennan Professor of 

Law and 

Head of the TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland. Ross 

B 

Grantham, LLD, BCL, LLM, LLB is Professor of Commercial Law, TC Beirne 

School 

of Law, The University of Queensland. 

Feb 08   492pp  Hbk   9781841138077   =C2=A375 / =E2�=AC115 

<http://www.hartpub.co.uk/books/det= 

ails.asp?isbn=3D9781841138077> 

      
 

____________________________________________________________________ 

 This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, 

 an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law 

 of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in 

 the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To uns= 

ubscribe, 

 send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to 

 all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. = 

The list is 

 run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>= 

;. 

 

    
 

____________________________________________________________________ 

 This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, 

 an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law 

 of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in 

 the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To uns= 

ubscribe, 

 send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to 

 all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. = 

The list is 

 run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>= 

;. 

 

  


--=20 

Prof. Dr. Gerhard Dannemann 

Centre for British Studies 

Humboldt-Universit=E4t zu Berlin 

Mohrenstr. 60 

10117 Berlin 

Tel. +49 30 2093 5334 

Fax  +49 30 2093 5370 

= 

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/gbz
____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:50:27 +0100 Reply-To: Eric Descheemaeker Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Eric Descheemaeker Subject: Re: Structure and Justification in Private Law Comments: To: Gerhard Dannemann In-Reply-To: <4808F519.3000703@gbz.hu-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0087_01C8A195.D4CF8CF0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0087_01C8A195.D4CF8CF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I did, actually! A couple of typos, and I had missed a letter in the = Times in 1993... All duly corrected in the new book. Whether this is a = sufficient vitiating factor to justify burning the first one, I'll leave = it to you to decide. If any members know of obscure (or not so obscure) pieces by Peter I = might have missed in the list, kindly let me know. Eric -- Eric Descheemaeker St Catherine's College Oxford ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Gerhard Dannemann=20 To: ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA=20 Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 8:23 PM Subject: Re: [RDG] Structure and Justification in Private Law Not unless Eric Descheemaeker has discovered any mistake (or is it = absence of basis?) in his list of Peter's publications.=20 Francis Rose wrote:=20 Does this mean that everything in the first tribute must now be called back and burnt? On Fri, April 18, 2008 4:32 pm, Lionel Smith wrote: RDG members will be interested to learn of this recently-published = book. Congratulations to Charles and Ross, and all the contributors. Lionel Structure and Justification in Private Law Essays for Peter Birks Edited by Charles Rickett and Ross Grantham Peter Birks's tragically early death, and his immense influence around the world, led immediately to the call for a volume of essays in his honour by scholars who had known him as a colleague, teacher and friend. One such volume, published in 2006, contained essays largely from scholars working in England (Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks, edited by Andrew Burrows and Lord Rodger). This volume contains the essays of those outside England who chose to honour Peter, and appears later than the English volume, reflecting the far flung habitations of its authors. The essays contained in this volume are focussed around the law of unjust enrichment, but are not narrowly preoccupied - instead they move freely from unjust enrichment to some of the most profound questions in private law concerning taxonomy, the relationship between contract, property and unjust enrichment, and the place of remedies within private law. This volume, featuring the work of some of the world's great private lawyers, provides a fitting tribute to a great scholar, and a series of thought-provoking essays inspired by his example. Contributors: Kit Barker, Michael Bryan, Peter Butler, Hanoch Dagan, Simone Degeling, Daniel Friedmann, Mark Gergen, Ross Grantham, Steve Hedley, John McCamus, Mitchell McInnes, Eoin O'Dell, Charles Rickett, Struan Scott, Emily Sherwin, Stephen Smith, Richard Sutton, Michael Tilbury, Stephen Waddams, Peter Watts, Ernest Weinrib, Eric Descheemaeker Charles EF Rickett, MA, LLB, BD is the Sir Gerard Brennan Professor of Law and Head of the TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland. Ross B Grantham, LLD, BCL, LLM, LLB is Professor of Commercial Law, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland. Feb 08 492pp Hbk 9781841138077 =C3=82=C2=A375 / = =C3=A2=EF=BF=BD=C2=AC115 = ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, . =20 ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, . =20 --=20 Prof. Dr. Gerhard Dannemann Centre for British Studies Humboldt-Universit=C3=A4t zu Berlin Mohrenstr. 60 10117 Berlin Tel. +49 30 2093 5334 Fax +49 30 2093 5370 http://www2.hu-berlin.de/gbz_____________________________________________= _______________________ This message was delivered through the = Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted = to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send = "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to = . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to = the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to = . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill = University, . ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, . ------=_NextPart_000_0087_01C8A195.D4CF8CF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BF
I did, actually! A couple of typos, and = I had=20 missed a letter in the Times in 1993... All duly corrected in the new = book.=20 Whether this is a sufficient vitiating factor to justify burning the = first one,=20 I'll leave it to you to decide.
 
If any members know of obscure (or not = so obscure)=20 pieces by Peter I might have missed in the list, kindly let me=20 know.
Eric
 
--
Eric Descheemaeker
St = Catherine's=20 College
Oxford
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Gerhard = Dannemann
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 = 8:23=20 PM
Subject: Re: [RDG] Structure = and=20 Justification in Private Law

Not unless Eric Descheemaeker has discovered any = mistake (or is=20 it absence of basis?) in his list of Peter's publications. =


Francis=20 Rose wrote:=20 
Does this mean that everything in the = 

first tribute must now be called 

back and burnt? 

 

 

On Fri, April 18, 2008 4:32 pm, Lionel Smith wrote: 

  
RDG members will be = 

interested to learn of this recently-published book. 

Congratulations to Charles and Ross, and all the contributors. 

Lionel 

 

 

    
Structure and = 

Justification in Private Law 

Essays for Peter Birks 

Edited by Charles Rickett and Ross Grantham 

Peter Birks's tragically early death, and his immense influence around 

the 

world, led immediately to the call for a volume of essays in his honour 

by 

scholars who had known him as a colleague, teacher and friend. One such 

volume, published in 2006, contained essays largely from scholars 

working in 

England (Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks, edited by 

Andrew 

Burrows and Lord Rodger).  This volume contains the essays of those 

outside 

England who chose to honour Peter, and appears later than the English 

volume, 

reflecting the far flung habitations of its authors. The essays 

contained in 

this volume are focussed around the law of unjust enrichment, but are 

not 

narrowly preoccupied - instead they move freely from unjust enrichment 

to some 

of the most profound questions in private law concerning taxonomy, the 

relationship between contract, property and unjust enrichment, and the 

place 

of remedies within private law. This volume, featuring the work of some 

of the 

world's great private lawyers, provides a fitting tribute to a great 

scholar, 

and a series of thought-provoking essays inspired by his example. 

Contributors: Kit Barker, Michael Bryan, Peter Butler, Hanoch Dagan, 

Simone 

Degeling, Daniel Friedmann, Mark Gergen, Ross Grantham, Steve Hedley, 

John 

McCamus, Mitchell McInnes, Eoin O'Dell, Charles Rickett, Struan Scott, 

Emily 

Sherwin, Stephen Smith, Richard Sutton, Michael Tilbury, Stephen 

Waddams, 

Peter Watts, Ernest Weinrib, Eric Descheemaeker 

Charles EF Rickett, MA, LLB, BD is the Sir Gerard Brennan Professor of 

Law and 

Head of the TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland. Ross 

B 

Grantham, LLD, BCL, LLM, LLB is Professor of Commercial Law, TC Beirne 

School 

of Law, The University of Queensland. 

Feb 08   492pp  Hbk   9781841138077   =C3=82=C2=A375 / = 

=C3=A2=EF=BF=BD=C2=AC115 

= 

<http://www.hartpub.co.uk/books/details.asp?isbn=3D9781841138077> 

      
_______________________________________________________________= 

_____ 

 This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, 

 an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law 

 of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in 

 the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>= 

. To unsubscribe, 

 send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to 

 all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca= 

>. The list is 

 run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>= 

. 

 

    
 

____________________________________________________________________ 

 This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, 

 an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law 

 of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in 

 the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>= 

. To unsubscribe, 

 send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to 

 all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca= 

>. The list is 

 run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>= 

. 

 

  


--=20 

Prof. Dr. Gerhard Dannemann 

Centre for British Studies 

Humboldt-Universit=C3=A4t zu Berlin 

Mohrenstr. 60 

10117 Berlin 

Tel. +49 30 2093 5334 

Fax  +49 30 2093 5370 

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/gbz____________________________________________________________________=20 

  This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, = 

an=20 

  international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of = 

unjust=20 

  enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a = 

message=20 

  to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send "signoff = 

enrichment"=20 

  to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to=20 

  <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel Smith of = 

McGill=20 

  University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>. =
____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>. ------=_NextPart_000_0087_01C8A195.D4CF8CF0--